User:Gabbydh47/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Natural science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a general concept of biology that I feel I have a good general background knowledge of. My first impression was that the article was not too specific and seemed to have a lot of definitions. There was a lot of references and I really liked all the further reading links they provided for more specific reading.

Evaluate the article
I think the lead section gave a brief description of the main topic. I like how in the lead section it mentioned all the different branches and history starting from the origins until modern day. There is a section in the page about interdisciplinary studies that was not mentioned in the lead section that I think should be added. I think overall the lead is a good summary and not too detailed. I think the article's content is all relevant and up to date. I wish they would have added more recent topics to the "present" section. None of the information feels as though it does not belong. All the points feel very neutral and unbiased towards me. There are some sections that have a little more in depth details than others. The section about Newton is very lengthy, meanwhile the sections covering the 19th century and modern day sciences are much shorter. There are a lot of citations, but most of it seems to come from one source, and not all links work. I think a wider variety of sources would be more beneficial and include differing opinions or views on the topic. All the sources they used are relatively updated from 2006 and on. I wish they would include some more recent sources. I think a good and more updated source they could add is a textbook option that is clearly unbiased. An example would be the Campbell biology textbook that the intro classes use. I think the article is very easy to understand and I did not notice and glaring grammatical errors. I liked how they broke down the types of sciences and then talked about the history chronologically. I do not think the images add or take away from the article. To me the images are just there and add some color instead of just reading words on a screen. I think the images are laid out well and captioned well and follow all copyright rules. There aren't any super recent conversations going on in the talk page but one thing I found in the talk section was there seemed to be some debate about whether or not mathematics is a science. The article is rated

C class for quality and top importance. I think overall the article is really good but really needs improvement on the types of citations and variety of them. I think it is a well developed article.